Visibility 367, October 15, 2008, Nice People, Distinction among baddies

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Magazine Beach Hill.
2. Visibility.
3. Distinction among the bad guys.

1. Magazine Beach Hill.

On the way to the Destroyed Nesting Area, I stopped off at the hill above Magazine Beach and gave leaflets to people there.

One gentleman who was playing with a dog read the leaflet and simply started loudly exclaiming negatively.

2. Visibility.

In the visibility, people were as nice as ever. One lady stood out there as well. She was a Jewish woman who explained that she could not take the flier because of the High Holy Days, but asked me where she could find us on the web.

It is very much normal for people to be shocked to learn that the bizarre wall of vegetation blocking off Magazine Beach from the Charles River was PAID to be installed.

3. Distinction among the bad guys.

Both our flier and the link toward the top of this blog provide the same names to contact and the same contact information, with one exception.

I have just added Governor Patrick to the top of the list on this site and hope that we will add him to the fliers.

The reality is that, as reprehensible as the Cambridge Pols UNIFORMLY are, Governor Patrick is responsible and his organization is even worse than the Cambridge Pols.

The outrages are occurring on state land. Governor Patrick handled Cambridge's money. Governor Patrick employs the reprehensible bureaucrats at the Department of Conservation and Recreation who are ongoing in their destruction of the environment and of our world's living beings. We have repeatedly objected about this outrage to Governor Patrick. We have been ignored.

Massive cuts are going on. Gross irresponsibility in environmental destruction is accelerating under Governor Patrick's "leadership." BU Bridge reconstruction is structured to destroy living beings as much as they can get away with and destroys what little ground vegetation the DCR has not destroyed between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. The massiveness of the destruction is very much needless and simply piles irresponsibility upon irresponsibility.

Nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors are listed because of their shared guilt. Even if they did not participate in the actual vote, they have been on the council long enough ignoring our objections that they clearly share the guilt.

The newest member, Samuel Seidel, voted for this outrage as a member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. A link can also be found on this blog to his public comments in which he brags that the heartless environmental destruction in which the Cambridge Pols are guilty is a new form of environmentalism.

Two names, however, should have flags: School Committee Member Marc McGovern and State Representative Walz.

McGovern has twice written letters to the Cambridge Chronicle bragging about this outrage. The second time, he was joined by Walz. The nine city councilors are vile and lying about how vile they are. Walz and McGovern have bragged about their reprehensible acts.

Visibility 366, Real People Are Shocked at the Hypocrisy of the Fake Green Activists

Bob La Trémouille reports

Nine hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council spend a lot of time lying that they are pro-environment. Their organizations and the City Manager's organization reinforces this outrageous lie.

During visibility 366, it was nice, as usual, to be talking with decent people who are shocked by the perfidy of these reprehensible people.

Visibility 365, October 9, 2008

Bob leafletted late afternoon with good response.

Marily leafletted during the evening rush. Her response was so good she ran out of fliers.

What You Can Do

This report was updated on December 21, 2010.

Workers, telephoning / writing and money are key.

We need leafleters, especially at the BU Bridge, but also at key meetings. Please contact Bob at 617-491-7181 or at boblat@yahoo.com.

Money for the fliers is crucial. We do not need much, but we do need a few hundred dollars for materials and other organizing costs. Please send contributions to:

Friends of the White Geese
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA 02139.

Our Financial Director is Ellen Schloss, 978-362-8786, birdimom@comcast.net.

These contributions are NOT tax deductible.

Contact Information for people to contact:

President Barack Obama needs to be contacted because millions of Obama stimulus dollars are being requested for destruction of hundreds of healthy trees between the BU Boathouse and the Longfellow Bridge, PLUS being used for destruction of even more goose food across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

His email contact form is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/. His telephone number is: 202-456-6213.

Governor Deval Patrick is at the heart of this situation on the state side. His managers do not merit attention. His own contact information is:
Email form: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us
888-870-7770 / 617-725-4005.

It is pointless to contact the Cambridge City Manager. It may be useful to contact the Cambridge Conservation Commission although its members are the Manager's appointees. (One former appointee in a different city agency has won a $4.5M judgment against the City Manager for his retaliation against her when he found her work displeasing. The judge in that case, Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, referred to the Manager's acts as "reprehensible." Cambridge has filed a Notice of Appeal.)

The Cambridge Conservation Commission may be reached by e-mail:
Director Jennifer Wright, jwright@CambridgeMA.GOV; telephone: 617-349-4680.

The Cambridge City Council and other city officials and their supporters dismiss concerns about these environmental outrages to the extent they comment at all. 2009 is, however, an election year and voters need to know where the candidates stand.

Incumbent City Councillors are:

Mayor David P. Maher
mailto:dmaher@cambridgema.gov
617-547-7219 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis
mailto:hdavis@cambridgema.gov
617-547-0877 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Leland Cheung,
mailto:LCheung@cambridgema.gov
617-491-2692 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Marjorie C. Decker
mailto:mdecker@cambridgema.gov
617-349-4280 (W)

Craig A. Kelley
mailto:ckelley@cambridgema.gov
617-354-8353 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Kenneth E. Reeves
mailto:kreeves@cambridgema.gov
617-661-1635 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Samuel Seidel
mailto:sseidel@cambridgema.gov
617-547-1067 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

E. Denise Simmons
mailto:dsimmons@cambridgema.gov
617-491-7435 (H), 617-349-4321 (W)

Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.
Also State Representative
mailto:TimToomey@aol.com
617-576-6483 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)


Cambridge School Committee incumbent:

Marc McGovern
617-945-1866 (H)

State Representatives:

Martha M. Walz
Rep.MartyWalz@Hou.State.MA.US
617-722-2460

Alice K. Wolf
Rep.AliceWolf@Hou.State.MA.US
617-722-2460

State Senators:

Sal N. DiDomenico
Sal.DiDomenico@state.ma.us
617-722-1650

Anthony Petruccelli
mailto:Anthony.Petruccelli@state.ma.us
617-722-1634

Rationale behind this list may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/visibility-367-october-15-2008-nice.html in section 3, Distinction among the bad guys.

It is our opinion that, in order to end the attacks on the Charles River, the Cambridge City Manager must be fired. The Cambridge City Council has a very strong court opinion calling the City Manager “reprehensible” for civil rights violations. We have posted that opinion at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, and have a YouTube analysis at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.

Thank you in advance for whatever you can do.

Archie Mazmanian on the Geese and the Urban Ring

Archie Mazmanian left us the following comment which led to the report after it.

I put up two more comments (7 and 8) on the current Urban Ring installment at www.onbrookline.com that should be of interest, especially #8 final paragraph on your subject.

From http://www.onbrookline.com/on-brookline-previous-columns/the-urban-ring-facing-darker-days/, comment 8:


Archie Mazmanian on October 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm:

ACADEMIC HONKING ON THE BOSTON SIDE OF THE CHARLES?

While a small gaggle of White Geese being deprived of their habitat on the Cambridge side of the Charles River at the BU Bridge are honking to get the attention of residents interested in preserving what little fauna and flora remain in this urban area, a battle is going on for what I term the “Boston Bank of the Charles River Beanpot Tourney” featuring Harvard University and Boston University that may at some point break out into a hockey game without ice (unless the Charles is frozen over). While Harvard has long been ensconced on the Boston side with its Business School, this was far enough away from the BU Bridge and the BU campus as to be tolerable to the latter. But then Harvard trumped even BU institutional blockbusting of past years with its “Harvard’s Got A Secret” acquisition of many acres in Allston, with plans to expand its campus there.

This was bad enough, especially since the Harvard elephant’s trunk got under the Urban Ring Phase 2 tent and has overwhelmed and complicated Phase 2 routes in the area of the BU Bridge and Commonwealth Avenue that would provide connections to the Harvard affiliated LMA.

For years, BU has envisioned expanding its campus westerly to and including portions of the Beacon Yards when available for development. But BU never closed the deal with CSX, assuming it tried and had the financial wherewithal. So in came Harvard and acquired the underlying land of the Beacon Yards, subject of course to CSX easements for rail, and perhaps other, transportation. As noted in an earlier comment on this installment of the Urban Ring series, the Commonwealth and CSX have been negotiating some sort of a deal. Harvard’s involvement in such negotiations has not been disclosed. It is doubtful that BU would have standing to participate in them. So it would appear that BU further westward expansion (assuming it had the funds) would require the largess of Harvard. There is so much acreage potential involved that Harvard could probably accommodate BU with a few acres, with an appropriate quid pro quo, of course. (Business is business, even – especially – in academia.)

As time goes on, we’ll learn more about the CSX negotiations as well as Harvard’s plans for its Allston campus and the potential development of the Beacon Yards, perhaps comparable to the Prudential Center as suggested in an earlier comment. Meantime, BU may be between the rock (BU Bridge) and the hard place (Beacon Yards) as the Phase 2 route to accommodate Harvard may disrupt BU’s West campus.

For the time being, BU seems to be quiet but if events develop to accommodate Harvard, then the honking on the Boston side of the Charles may overwhelm that of the White Geese on the Cambridge side.

By the way, drivers on Memorial Drive should proceed with care in the area of the BU Bridge to protect and accommodate the White Geese crossing between their habitat and new feeding grounds forced upon them by the Commonwealth and Cambridge. In fact, give a couple of honks of your horns in support of the White Geese of Cambridge; I’ll be listening here in Brookline just across the Charles. Also, the Cambridge Conservation Commission has rescheduled a hearing relative to the BU Bridge that should address White Geese issues on November 17th. Maybe we can start up a fund for “Make Way for Goslings.”

Visibility 364. Destruction of Magazine Beach: Reports by Bob La Tremouille and Marilyn Wellons

1. Visibility.
2. White Geese cross the street.
3. Marilyn Wellons on her discussion with Councillor Kelley.

Bob La Trémouille reports about leafleting at the BU Bridge against Cambridge's destruction of Magazine Beach, now underway. Marilyn Wellons reports about her conversation with Councillor Craig Kelley on the same topic.

Bob La Tremouille:

1. Visibility.

I did a visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area for an hour or two this afternoon.

People were very concerned and very interested. They would drive by with their hands out of their windows for fliers.

A couple of people who took fliers yesterday stopped by for further questions.

Clearly, a lot of support.

2. White Geese cross the street.

A little later than half way through the visibility, I looked back and saw a large number of geese crossing the ramp to Memorial Drive from grass under Memorial Drive to the Destroyed Nesting Area.

The state bureacrats and nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors have taken almost all their food away from them. So they brave crossing an on ramp to Memorial Drive to get to luscious grass under Memorial Drive.

They are excellently responsible pedestrians. They will stand on the side of the road and stand on the side of the road until they think it is safe to cross. Trouble is that when they cross, they walk like geese. This time, there were quite a few of them. So I wandered behind them, on the grass under Memorial Drive, and sushed them to move them faster. One straggler got separated. I sushed him, and he half flew.

And through all this, the drivers patiently waited because they love the Charles River White Geese. The drivers are normal people. They have no resemblance to the heartless people who constitute the Cambridge pols.

3. Marilyn Wellons on her discussion with Councillor Kelley.

When I spoke with Councillor Kelley Tuesday evening about Cambridge's destruction, he emphasized that he and other Councillors need to hear directly from people other than those of us who have been very vocal.

Whatever inclination Councillors may have to stop this crime against the environment—and it’s my sense that there is more than one with such an inclination—it’s a fact of politics that they can do nothing without a public outcry, communicated directly to them. They need our help to do the right thing.

So now is the time for all of us to let the Council know directly that the project must stop immediately:

It is a crime against the environment that destroys wetlands and will undo $60 million spent so far to clean up the Charles River.

It squanders Cambridge taxpayers’ money that should put playing fields for Cambridge schools and youth groups in their own neighborhoods rather than across a 4-lane highway.

It destroys the habitat of migrating as well as resident waterfowl, including the Charles River White Geese.

Please contact the Cambridge City Council to register your strong objection to this project:

Mayor E. Denise Simmons mailto:dsimmons@cambridgema.gov
491-7435 (H) 349-4321 (W)

Vice Mayor Brian Murphy mailto:bmurphy@cambridgema.gov
492-7426 (H) 349-4280 (W)

Henrietta Davis mailto:hdavis@cambridgema.gov
(617) 547-0877 (H) (617) 349-4280 (W)

Marjorie C. Decker mailto:mdecker@cambridgema.gov
(617) 349-4280 (W)

Craig A. Kelley mailto:ckelley@cambridgema.gov
(617) 354-8353 (H) (617) 349-4280 (W)

David P. Maher mailto:dmaher@cambridgema.gov%29
547-7219 (H) 617-349-4280 (W)

Kenneth E. Reeves mailto:kreeves@cambridgema.gov
(617) 661-1635 (H) (617) 349-4280 (W)

Sam Seidel mailto:sseidel@cambridgema.gov
617-547-1067 (home) 617-349-4280 (work)

Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. mailto:TimToomey@aol.com
(617) 576-6483 (H) (617) 349-4280 (W)

Marilyn Wellons

October 7, 2008: Visibility No. 363

Bob La Tremouille and Marilyn Wellons carried signs and distributed several hundred leaflets at the BU Bridge about Cambridge's destruction of Magazine Beach. The flyers indicate responsibility for the project lies with the Cambridge City Council and ask people to contact the Councillors.

This was Visibility No. 363 since the 1999 start of Cambridge's and the DCR's joint campaign to destroy the Charles River environment. As usual, passing drivers honked to support the visibility and pedestrians and cyclists stopped to learn more.

Cambridge's contractor began removing the grass and dirt from Magazine Beach at the start of October. Migrating waterfowl have continued to feed on the remaining grass as it disappears.

Cambridge intends to replace what is simultaneously wildlife habitat, passive open space, and playing fields for everyone, with commercial sod, an irrigation system, and fences for professional-level organized sports fields. The project will destroy passive green space, wildlife habitat on the Atlantic flyway, and general use of the fields for a wide variety of casual and organized sports.

Cambridge is converting state parkland to the privileged use of Cambridge schools and youth groups because it is too cheap to buy land for these purposes in underserved neighborhoods, where there is a crying need for them.

*********

Bob La Trémouille:

The above report is from Marilyn. I thank her for the excellent report.

These blog reports were preceded by an email newsletter which ran from March 2000 to 2005 and, at its peak, distribution reached 1300 recipients. They were, during most of their run, matched to visibilities at the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.

For technical reasons, it was only possible for one person to publish the newsletter. This blog relieves me of the need to be the only person, but requires a correction to the number of visibilities. They are much greater than 363, I think. I did multiple series of reports of visibilities related to various purposes. The general series totals 363. All brought together greatly exceed 363.

We must talk and agree on correct language.

********

Marilyn has reported to me a conversation with Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley that evening.

He preached process.

There was no process. Public complaints and public input have been flatly and simply ignored including complaints to the Cambridge City Council to Kelley's face.

They took their vote in December 1999 and did not want to know nothing in spite of constant and repeated objections.

The years of silence of a varying but always united crew of nine includes silence that encouraged the rape and murder of a young woman in fall 2001. In 2001, nine city councilors blessed the woman's killer's repeated killings of nesting geese with the praise of silence.

The killer graduated, exactly as we predicted.

By the current outrageous behavior at Magazine Beach, nine heartless hypocrites have graduated as well.

Even if the strikingly irresponsible bureaucrats for the City of Cambridge and the state had gone through some sort of meaningful process, which they did not, Cambridge has nine city councilors who have the nerve to call themselves environmentalists.

Kelley's response is the typical response of a fake Cambridge liberal: How dare YOU NOT KEEP ME from doing this terrible thing.

Claims of environmentalism by the any of the nine are flat out nonsense.

The nine repeatedly demonstrate their contempt for the environment where it counts, in their back yard, as is demonstrated by the outrageous environmental destruction they are responsible for or planning on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond, at Alewife, and almost in all other open space projects.

Fancy buildings are no excuse for cavalier destruction of the land and the vegetation and animals on it.

Holier than thou hypocrisy. Really, really heartless people.

Press Release: Cambridge City Council and DCR Destroy Magazine Beach

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have just released the following press release:

PRESS RELEASE, October 7, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Bob La Trémouille, 617-283-7649, Marilyn Wellons 617-354-3858, charlesriverwhitegeese@yahoo.com

RE: Cambridge City Council and DCR Destroy Magazine Beach

On Monday, October 6, the peace at Magazine Beach on the Charles River in Cambridge was once again disrupted by massive earth moving equipment.

The earth that water fowl have fed on for more than 50 years was dug up and placed in piles.

This is the latest step in the destruction of living beings on the Charles River by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and nine Cambridge City Councilors.

This particular action is intended to replace green maintenance of Magazine Beach with chemical maintenance. The nine city councilors have never specifically justified the destruction at Magazine Beach. According to activists, it is part of a pattern which includes an ongoing project at Fresh Pond which is apparently destroying thousands of healthy trees and a project at Alewife which would destroy the Alewife reservation for flood storage which should go under a parking lot 500 feet to the south.

The project at Magazine Beach will destroy seven acres of perfectly good dirt and grass and replace the seven acres of dirt and grass with seven acres of dirt, grass, and chemicals. The chemicals will poison the eggs of water fowl feeding at Magazine Beach and poison kids rolling around in the poison.

The last such project by the DCR was at Ebersol Fields on the Charles near Mass. General. At Ebersol Fields, their beloved chemicals did not work, so the DCR added Tartan in spite of prohibitions near water. The next day the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge with annually recurring algae.

A bizarre wall of vegetation was installed at Magazine Beach, blocking access to the Charles River. It was installed by the two groups in 2004-2005. The DCR’s agents bragged that this solid wall would help swimming. The DCR explained their taking their food, the grass at Magazine Beach, from the Charles River White Geese after four years of DCR promises that the Charles River White Geese would not be harmed: The DCR explained that starving the Charles River White Geese is not harming them.

For five years the DCR’s agents have been destroying vegetation protecting migrating birds throughout the Charles River below the Watertown dam.

For five years, the DCR’s agents have been poisoning as many eggs of waterfowl as they can get away with in the same part of the Charles River.

During the past five years, the DCR’s agents have destroyed the vast majority of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse,. This is the ghetto where the DCR and Cambridge have consigned the Charles River White Geese. Useful vegetation is massively destroyed. The bizarre wall at Magazine Beach keeps growing.

Soon to come BU Bridge reconstruction is planned to destroy what little ground vegetation has not been destroyed between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. The project as announced is planned with maximum and unnecessary cruelty to resident animals, following upon eight years of vile behavior toward resident animals.

One Cambridge city councilor, Samuel Seidel has publicly bragged that environmental destruction shows Cambridge’s enlightened version of environmentalism. That analysis may be viewed at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.

A public hearing on the BU Bridge project has been announced by the DCR for Thursday, October 16, at 6 to 8 pm, at 871 Commonwealth Avenue, Room 129, in Boston. A public hearing was requested by the Cambridge Conservation Commission at its discussion of the project in early September. The DCR apparently is responding to the Cambridge request with a Boston hearing.

The Cambridge Conservation Commission may formally consider the BU Bridge proposal at their October 20, meeting at 7 pm on the fourth floor of the Cambridge City Hall Annex, Broadway and Inman Streets in Cambridge.

Prepared by Robert J. La Trémouille

Environmental issues at Alewife: Archon Group's proposed development

Water Quality, Habitat, Boston Harbor

The Archon Group, developers of three new buildings on CambridgePark Drive at Alewife, announced at the September 23, 2008 Planning Board hearing that holding tanks for 38,000 gallons of raw sewage will go under one of those buildings.

Archon's civil engineer explained that Cambridge is under court order to clean up Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) there. Cambridge Department of Public Works (DPW) has asked Archon to put storage tanks sufficient for 1.5-2 days of raw sewage during a flooding "event," as "mitigation."

The storage tank is not the stormwater retention pond Cambridge proposes to put in the Alewife Reservation, although it is related to it.

Steve Kaiser reminded the Planning Board that the retention pond is the subject of a court case to be heard Wednesday, October 1, in Suffolk Superior Court. And Elsie Fiori, Arlington resident and former Conservation Commission member, said even if Archon or other developers put sewage in the holding tanks, any overflow goes directly into Alewife Brook.

Following up with both, I have tried to understand the relation of the sewage tanks and the retention pond to see where the Archon project fits in all this. Given the pending court case, this is a preliminary report.

Background:

Only a very small portion of the Great Swamp between Fresh Pond and the Mystic River constitutes the Alewife Reservation--state parkland. The larger area has been and remains wetlands and flood plain. Cambridge, our "green" city, has declined to forgo any development of land there in private hands. (It could presumably use Community Preservation Act funds to acquire and protect this natural flood storage system.) Instead, ignoring the costs of its strategy, it has treated Alewife as a piggy bank that pays out with each new development.

Over the years, the city's investment in sanitary drainage from development of the great swamp has not kept pace with building there. CSOs, where raw sewage and stormwater runoff mix in sewer pipes, overflow onto the land in storms and back up into people's houses. Ultimately this pollution makes it to the Mystic River and Boston harbor, to the detriment of living beings in its course. A federal court has ordered the state to clean it up. The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) was the agency created to do so.

Cambridge's Design

According to Ms. Fiore, Cambridge has now separated all but 4 of 11 combined sewers there but argues it doesn't have $1M to separate the final 4.

According to Mr. Kaiser, although the MWRA is the sponsoring agency for the CSO separation, Cambridge was designated for the design. Cambridge's design changed the project to include a retention pond for stormwater runoff from the Fresh Pond flood plain north of Concord Ave and around New Street. Cambridge puts the retention pond at Alewife Reservation, right next to Little River. The pond consumes much of the Reservation, a precious urban wild.

DPW's Owen O'Riordan is apparently the city's point man for the design and the sewage storage tanks. (I think leverage must be through the Conservation Commission and the Wetlands Protection Act. The ConCom allowed 310 residential units in the floodplain in the Oaktree building with a sewage storage tank under it.)

Given Archon's statements at the Planning Board, Cambridge's position may be that holding tanks for raw sewage under new buildings at Alewife are adequate "mitigation" for failure to separate the final 4 CSOs. Since I understand the case in Suffolk Superior Court deals only with the retention pond and not specifically CSOs, I am still not clear whether the court has allowed Cambridge to separate 7 and not 11 CSOs provided it requires sewage tanks and constructs the detention pond, or whether there are further legal issues.

Cambridge's Plan

So, as I understand the city's plan: in a big storm, stormwater from Fresh Pond properties is to flow into the retention pond in the Alewife Reservation, to be discharged into Little River and Alewife Brook in due course. At the same time, raw sewage from new buildings at Alewife is to be stored under them for 1-2 days, and then discharged into unseparated sewers.

As "Best Management Practices" (BMPs), as I think these are called, the retention pond and the storage tanks assume 1.) the storm goes away in 1-2 days; 2.) the floodplain drains; 3.) the detained stormwater and stored sewage then run into unseparated sewers to Alewife Brook, thence 4.) into the Mystic River, 5.) thence into the harbor.

Ms. Fiore points out that in a more serious storm that exceeds the storage capacity of the sewage tanks, raw sewage beyond the Archon tank's 38,000 gallons will go directly into the combined sewers, thence into the flooding Alewife Brook and plain, and sewage backs up into sanitary drains. She notes that releasing the stored sewage gradually after any storm may be more harmful to habitat than discharging it all at once; no data have been offered.

Cambridge's Strategy

The city will maintain development in Cambridge's Alewife flood plain (hence tax base and revenues, hence bond rating), shift the burden of complying with the court order to clean up Boston Harbor to Alewife developers, and spare the city an estimated $1M to separate the last 4 illegal, polluting, combined sewers there.

It will shift the burden of stormwater management from land around Fresh Pond zoned for development (hence tax base and revenues, hence bond rating) to Alewife's state parkland, sparing the city's coffers the loss of such development.

For many years the city's executive has pursued this strategy of preserving the development potential of every scrap of land, and shifting every possible municipal cost to others, whether they be homeowners in Cambridge or Arlington, developers at Alewife, or all who benefit from the urban wild on state parkland at Alewife.

Staff departments and boards work on operational details, and, supported up to now by the City Council, cultivate a public image of probity and prudence in the execution of this strategy.

*********
Air Quality at Alewife

In addition to the CSO storage tanks, Cambridge apparently wants Archon to pull another chestnut from the fire.

Archon's project is supposed to be transit-oriented-development (TOD), but the congestion at Alewife is a mess. (Archon was previously the developer at North Point, another presumed TOD.)

The city says traffic at Alewife is a regional problem, not one of Archon's making. So the Assistant City Manager for Traffic and Parking, Susan Clippinger, thinks 1648 new autos from that development are ok, and 1827 are negotiable. (The people who wait 45 minutes to get out of Cpark Drive during the afternoon rush hour said at the hearing they don't agree.)

Ms. Clippinger said the city wants either the state or Archon to fund improvements to the Rte2/Rte 16 intersection to help unclog the massive traffic jams all along Alewife Brook Parkway and CambridgePark Drive.

Massachusetts, with a $20B backlog on existing maintenance of the transportation infrastructure and long lines for the transportation bond money, seems a poor candidate to pay for any such thing. In the current financial climate, and given previous problems at North Point, it's not clear whether Archon would be happy to pick up the slack.

The Planning Board continued the hearing to October 7, public comment remains open through that meeting.

Marilyn Wellons

Article in Boston Globe, Letter in Cambridge Chronicle

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Boston Sunday Globe report.

The City Section of today's Boston Sunday Globe (September 14, 2008) published an excellent article on the BU Bridge project and the impact on the Charles River White Geese.

It may currently be viewed online at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/09/14/but_who_speaks_for_the_geese/.

Good article. Excellent photo of one of our eminent residents.

2. Cambridge Chronicle letter.

The Cambridge Chronicle printed our recent Sarah Palin article on the first letters page, page 9 in its September 11, 2008 edition. We published it below at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-would-love-cambridge-ma-and.html. The Chronicle published it without apparent edit. The Chronicle printing of the letter may be seen at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1729992217/Letter-Sarah-Palin-Cambridge-have-a-lot-in-common.

The title provided by the editor is "Sarah Palin, Cambridge have a lot in common." Interestingly, this was the third letter printed. The first letter took the Chronicle to task for the title provided a letter in a previous edition for the Chronicle's apparent failure to recognize irony.

There is no way I would, with any great vigor, go to and challenge the Chronicle after publishing the letter so visibly. I can see, however, how Republicans might object to Governor Palin's behavior being compared to the civil rights and environmental irresponsibility of the City of Cambridge, MA.

I am aware of no grounds to contend that Governor Palin is as irresponsible as the City of Cambridge either in the civil rights or environmental fields.

Additionally, the truly reprehensible part of the behavior of the City of Cambridge comes from their extreme hypocrisy. There is no reason whatsoever to compare Governor Palin to the real vileness of the hypocrisy in the City of Cambridge.

The purpose of the letter was to say that she would love to CHALLENGE the City of Cambridge for their hypocrisy.

CRY OF THE WHITE GOOSE

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following is reprinted from www.onbrookline.com with permission of the author, exact URL provided:

Archie Mazmanian on September 11th, 2008 at 8:31 am:
http://www.onbrookline.com/on-brookline-previous-columns/08/urban-ring-sick-bus-rapid-transit-gloria/

CRY OF THE WHITE GOOSE!

I hadn’t taken a walk along the Charles River for several years. A niece from California visiting with us likes to walk, so we accessed the Charles River through BU’s campus at the Marsh Chapel and the pedestrian bridge over Storrow Drive . We walked down to and crossed the Massachusetts Avenue bridge, noting the “Smoot” distance markings, and then headed westerly towards the BU Bridge.

Since my last perambulation along this route, there have been many changes on the Cambridge side along the Charles. Bushes at the waters’ edge would block views of the white geese who used to “control” much of this bank of the Charles where guests at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, nearby workers and strollers would feed them. I recalled that one had to keep distance from the geese – especially children – as white geese were very protective of their goslings. For the most part, people enjoyed, admired and respected these white geese, especially in an urban environment, providing a valuable life experience especially for children observing and learning respect for nature.
Perhaps these bushes were planted to thwart both the white geese and the people who fed and watched them. Who was accountable for this? Was it the City of Cambridge ? BU which had taken over and substantially enlarged a boat house across the Charles from its Boston campus at the easterly Cambridge side of the BU Bridge? The Hyatt Regency Hotel? The Commonwealth? Surely it wasn’t the strollers or the workers at the several rehabbed facilities just across Memorial Drive enjoying lunch breaks on the bank of the Charles and a respite from urban life.

During our walk, I gave my niece a “history” of what has happened in this area since we moved to nearby Brookline in 1973. As we passed the BU boat house, I noticed for the first time a flight of stairs leading down to an open sandy area just back from the River, surrounded by protective vegetation, filled with white geese, their nesting area. We didn’t go down the stairs for a closer look as we did not wish to disturb the white geese; after all, they respect our privacy, don’t they?

This nesting area is just easterly of the GJRL and the BU Bridge it passes under crossing the River. As any commuter in the Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge area knows, the Bridge is undergoing extensive, long-needed repairs. But conservation issues have just recently surfaced, involving not only water quality issues but the situation of the white geese and their nesting area. The plan of the Commonwealth may include using the white geese’s nesting area, or a portion, for staging BU Bridge repairs. But what would happen to the white geese community?

The Cambridge Conservation Commission has entered the scene, perhaps goaded (or goosed?), to address conservation issues associated with the Bridge repairs. On the Boston side, there are no white geese issues, only water quality, so that Boston ’s Conservation Commission seems to have been silent on conservation issues related to Bridge repairs. The Town of Brookline ’s Conservation Commission lacks jurisdiction as its borders stop at the southerly side of Commonwealth Avenue . So let’s credit the Cambridge environmental community for goading (or goosing?) the Cambridge Conservation Commission into addressing the white geese who are between the rock ( Charles River ?) and the hard place (BU Bridge?). But might this Commission cave-in to the priority of Bridge repairs over the white geese?

Phase 2 of the Urban Ring continues to plod ahead with its Charles River crossing route either over or under (GJRL) the BU Bridge, which would affect more than the white geese nesting area along the GJRL in portions of Cambridgeport towards Kendall Square . Perhaps it is time for the Urban Ring project to reconsider the location (and method) for Phase 2’s Charles River crossing. A long traffic bottle-necked Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge area gets worse and worse with BU Bridge repairs proposed to take place over the next three years or more. Adding Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses over – or under (GJRL) – the BU Bridge may get us closer to gridlock as well as destroy the white geese nesting area.

We must listen to the “Cry of the White Geese” variation on the late Frankie Laine’s hit recording of yesteryear: “My heart knows what the white goose knows, I must go where the white goose goes.”

Elaboration on BU Bridge Proposal

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The extreme irresponsponsibility of the Department of Conservation and Recreation has made their proposal for major work on the BU Bridge even more destructive than the least it would be with a responsible bureacracy at the helm.

The BU Bridge needs work, BUT that work is being done in the context of strikingly irresponsible behavior by Cambridge and the state bureaucrats.

The irresponsible record makes the situation that much worse in their reprehensible treatment of the Charles River White Geese.

The geese have been starved. Their habitat has been destroyed, and the sick people doing this have entered into the ghetto to which they have been confined. They have destroyed ground vegetation and destroyed ground vegetation and destroyed ground vegetation.

The result is that the area now proposed to be destroyed is what little vegetation these bastards have not destroyed in the past four years, PLUS they are destroying a very significant part of the ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese have been driven.

This is nothing less than outrageous.

If the Charles River were restored to the situation before 2004, the environmental damage of the BU Bridge project would be excuseable IF IT WERE TEMPORARY.

There is not only no proposal to undo four years of damage, but the bastards at the DCR and Cambridge are continuing additional environmental destruction.

IN ADDITION TO NOT doing the even more destructive stuff that I reported on in the prior report, the following needs to be done:

1. The sickos from the Charles River Conservancy MUST BE STOPPED. Their ongoing destruction of ground vegetation is threatening the migration path and has destroyed all ground vegetation at the nesting area stretching beyond the railroad to the BU Boathouse.

Pretty much the only vegetation which has not been destroyed would be destroyed by the latest outrage.

The area must be reseeded. The native vegetation which the sickos from the Charles River Conservancy are destroying ON BEHALF OF the bureacrats and Cambridge must return.

2. The bizarre vegetation walling off the Charles River from Magazine Beach must be chopped down and kept chopped down. Give the sickos something constructive to do. Get rid of this mess and let the Charles River White Geese return to Magazine Beach for normal feeding.

3. Kill the Cambridge and DCR plans to poison Magazine Beach with chemicals. Absolutely bizarre, quite simply bizarre.

Thank you.

Public Tour on BU Bridge Rebuilding this Friday, Official Hearing 10/20.

This coming Friday at 8 am, the DCR will take the Cambridge Conservation Commission on a tour of the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese and other Cambridge locations impacted by the proposed BU Bridge reconstruction.

The Cambridge Conservation Commission meeting Monday evening on the project was striking for the environmental insensitivity of the DCR and its consultant.

Instead of using the rotary under Memorial Drive for staging, these destructive individuals intend to use half of the geese's last residence, the half next to the Memorial Drive off ramp.

A drainage system which could be installed on the west side of the bridge, with the same contempt for the environment, is scheduled for installation in the geese's nesting area as well.

Apparently, major work is needed for the eastern side of the Bridge. That would require use of part of the habitat. The DCR is proposing what appears to be destruction of 2/3 of the habitat including pretty much all the ground vegetation which, to date, has not been destroyed by the Charles River Conservancy acting as agent for the DCR.

Monday's meeting was not an official hearing. The official hearing will apparently be conducted the evening of October 20, 2008, 7 pm or so, on the fourth floor of Cambridge City Hall Annex at the corner of Broadway and Inman Street.

Monday's meeting was covered by the Globe City Section and by the BU student press.

Sarah Palin would love Cambridge, MA and the state bureaucrats

The following letter was sent by Bob La Trémouille to a number of recipients. Sarah Palin is the Republicans' candidate for vice president. She is currently governor of Alaska:

**********

Sarah Palin, who mocked Senator Obama at the Republican convention, would have a field day with the City of Cambridge and its friends. She would love the frequently heartless behavior in the fields of civil rights and the environment.

Very quickly the city council will have to choose between firing the city manager or appealing a $4.5 million jury decision. $3.5 million of that decision is penal. The jury found that the city manager fired a black woman head of the Police Review Board in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has twice now found probable cause of discrimination in the city council’s attempt to keep a handicapped woman from using her guide dog.

The city’s "environmentalism" includes destroying what appears to be thousands of healthy trees at Fresh Pond. Healthy mature trees are being destroyed so the city council can plant saplings. The city council brags of its saplings but keeps tree destruction secret.

Monday, September 8, the Cambridge Conservation Commission will decide whether to authorize the destruction of the final part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.

The rest of the habitat has already been destroyed for them and their food taken away from them.

The key bureaucrat in the Department of Conservation and Recreation calls this "doing no harm" to them. He has repeatedly made that assertion since state attacks against animals and native vegetation on the Charles started in October 1999.

DCR agents now routinely destroy the eggs of as much water fowl as they can get away with on the Charles River.

DCR agents, twice a year, destroy protective vegetation needed by migrating waterfowl on the Charles River, while omitting destruction of the bizarre wall of vegetation planted at Magazine Beach.

The DCR and Cambridge are destroying green maintenance at Magazine Beach for chemical maintenance. At Ebersol Fields, the DCR followed up with Tartan. They poisoned the Charles from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge.

"Environmental protection" in the zoning ordinance is too often anything but. Let us not forget the zoning change which was claimed to protect green space between the Radisson Hotel and Memorial Drive. Secret fine print did exactly the opposite.

Sarah Palin would love Cambridge. The holier than thous are so commonly flat out hypocrisy that Cambridge is the Republicans’ holy grail in their fight against liberalism.

Cambridge Conservation Commission to consider destruction of Nesting Area on September 8, 2008

Bob La Tremouille and Marilyn Wellons attended the Boston Conservation Commission’s August 20, 2008 hearing on the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s proposed work on the Boston side of the BU Bridge. After that meeting they discussed work on the Cambridge side with the DCR’s consultant and now post this report.

The Cambridge Conservation Commission will vote whether to destroy the nesting area of Charles River White Geese on September 8, 2008. The hearing will be at 7:15 pm in the 4^th floor conference room at Cambridge's City Hall annex, 344 Broadway (corner of Broadway and Inman Street).

The vote is officially on a Department of Conservation and Recreation request to install a new drainage system on the bridge. This follows on a meeting of the Boston Conservation Commission which was reported in the Boston Sunday Globe of August 31, 2008, for work on the Boston side. A news report on that hearing may be seen at:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/08/31/wary_approval_for_bu_bridge_plan?s_campaign=8315

The Cambridge vote is also one on the DCR’s sub rosa request to finish destruction of the nesting area, illegally begun in 1999 and continued piecemeal since then. The DCR aims to eliminate the 25 year resident Charles River White Geese through habitat destruction and other measures. This is part of an ongoing attempt to destroy any and all animals they can get away with who are living on the Charles River. They use whatever excuse works.

Repair of the bridge will take three years and destroy half of the nesting area in a swath along the bridge itself for a new drainage system. Beyond a 100’ buffer zone along the river, in a wide swath parallel to and abutting the Memorial drive Drive sidewalk, staging for the project will destroy the upper portion.

The state’s Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, charges the Cambridge ConCom with protection of wildlife habitat, including the White Geese’s nesting area. It is also a refuge for injured Canada geese, nesting area for mallard ducks, hunting grounds for red-tailed and sharp-shinned hawks, home to Baltimore orioles and other songbirds, and to rabbits.

Given that law, and given public support for the geese and other free animals here, the DCR has been careful in its efforts to eliminate the White Geese. The agency has subverted the Wetlands Protection Act, engaging in habitat destruction and inciting the bloody-minded to attack the animals, all the while protesting it means no harm to the geese.

The DCR initially kept the Cambridge ConCom ignorant of these efforts. In October, 1999, the DCR’s agent, Boston University, began clearing and poisoning the nesting area before the ConCom even met to consider the DCR’s request for the work. The DCR did not indicate any agent, and the work done far exceeded the permission the ConCom granted.

Now, in 2008, the DCR began work on the BU Bridge through the goose meadow in May, without even applying for a hearing. The DCR has argued that the work is maintenance and therefore exempt. It was clear, however, on August 20 that the Boston board rejects this argument. It is serious about its responsibilities and will fight to protect its jurisdiction. It is an open question whether Cambridge will do so.

Commissioner Kunian of the Boston Conservation Commission, in the August 20 meeting, explicitly asked the DCR to “listen to us,” rather than “let the Supreme Judicial Court decide who’s right and when.” Boston wants to know the actual work to take place in the 100’ buffer zone along the Charles and to understand the work beyond it, so the Commission can assess the impact. In passing, Commissioner Kunian referred to ongoing work on the bridge’s sidewalks from a barge in the river, saying he didn’t know what Cambridge had said about that. (The barge is supplied from the Cambridge side by truck through the nesting area.)

Cambridge of course has said nothing because it was not asked to review the work and has not demanded to do so. Whether Cambridge will insist on reviewing the barge supply for sidewalk repair as well as the proposed drainage system and structural work, including scaffolding and sandblasting in the nesting area over a three-year period, is an open question.

It is unlikely the impact of any of this work on habitat is even mentioned in the DCR’s filings.

The DCR’s consultant for the project is STV Inc., whose website announces the firm’s “environmental sensitivity” (http://www.stvinc.com/). In a conversation with Bob La Tremouille and Marilyn Wellons after the August 20 meeting, STV’s representative was familiar with the Cambridge work site in the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese. He stated he was unaware anything of he considered of value there. He made no mention animals or concern for animals. He said the nesting area is better for excavation, pipes, hydrodynamic separator, construction trailer, supplies, trucks, and traffic than the western, upriver land because it is “completely open.” We must assume that the DCR’s bid documents fail to mention wildlife habitat and/or that DCR officials dismissed questions about it.

Significantly, the DCR did not attend the Boston hearing. They sent their consultant.

*************

For one take on the Cambridge ConCom’s possible approach to the issue September 8, see the exchange between former ConCom member, now City Councillor Sam Seidel, and Bob La Tremouille at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.

Mr. Seidel focuses on the complex interaction of humans and natural resources in the “relatively unforgiving settings” of cities. His starting point is that “urban natural areas . . . . have already felt the [negative] impact of human choices” and “can improve through human intervention,” which he endorses, “with an eye toward restoration or improvement.” The aim is “sustainability,” to “rebalance the equation between humans and their environment,” i.e., “today’s consumption desires with tomorrow’s needs. In other words, we can’t mortgage future generations to satisfy our current wishes.”

Environmental science questions “long-entrenched assumptions” and is developing a “deeper understanding of the natural systems enmeshed in [cities].” Remarkably, Mr. Seidel praises an environmental science that discovers how “nature by itself does the important work” to remedy human harm. His example is the increasingly detailed appreciation of wetlands, whose “bioengineering” improves water quality and provides habitat at the same time.

Here is a recognition of urban wilds—those remarkable places where nature itself does the important work of filling in after often radical human disturbance—and an implicit acknowledgement of the value of such habitats for future generations of humans (to say nothing of their value for the plants and animals in them). While it seems unlikely bioengineering will remedy the specific problem of drainage from the BU Bridge, Mr. Seidel’s analysis here should lead the Cambridge ConCom to reject the DCR’s proposal to destroy critical wildlife habitat in the process of improving the river’s water quality and repairing the BU Bridge.

Given the ConCom’s decision about Magazine Beach, however, when Mr. Seidel and other members voted to allow the DCR project that will destroy habitat and give us toxic blue-green algae at the same time, the odds are not good.

******************

A judge is currently reviewing a jury's award of more than $4.5 million in CIVIL RIGHTS damages including $3.5 million in penal damages stemming from their finding that the Cambridge City Manager violated the civil rights of a BLACK FEMALE Cape Verdean department head. They found that he fired her IN RETALIATION for her filing a civil rights complaint. It is unlikely that the judge will reverse the jury because judges normally do not reverse juries and because a previous judge in the same case has already refused to grant pretty much the same motion.

It would be a mistake to think elected City Councillors are less vulnerable to retaliation from the City Manager than one of his appointees, like the Complainant in this case. We petition Councillors about issues critically important to us, but the Manager is the executive to whom the Council looks for implementation, through department heads and appointed boards like the Conservation Commission.

If the judge fails to reverse the jury decision in the Monteiro case, it will be interesting to see whether the Council decides to change Managers and move the city to enforcement of the Wetlands Protection Act, among other laws.

In the meantime, the Cambridge Conservation Commission is making this important decision Monday, September 8, at its 7:15 hearing, 4th floor conference room, Cambridge City Hall annex, Broadway and Inman Streets, Cambridge , MA .

Cambridge Chronicle: BU Bridge and related DCR / Cambridge Bad Works

Bob La Trémouille:

The following letter was printed in the August 14, 2008, edition of the Cambridge Chronicle, page 10, under the editor inserted title, "Environment? What environment?"

The anonymous gripe reference is to an anonymous complaint line maintained by the paper from which they print selected comments.

I have not compared versions in detail, but I noticed one minor edit in the Chronicle while preparing this report.

*********

Your anonymous gripe about the closing of the BU Bridge’s western sidewalk for repairs has great value.

The DCR announced the closing on May 20, 2008. The repairs may start the week of August 10.

This is part of a pattern of bad DCR performance.

A quick look at the Boston end of the bridge will show a brand new two lane turn from Commonwealth Avenue. An entire block of greenery was destroyed to create that two lane turn.
The DCR, apparently, has placed markings on the left lane of the new two lane turn PROHIBITING use of the left lane.

Further destruction of vegetation in the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, east of the Cambridge end of the BU Bridge, is related to the sidewalk project. Some trucks ran over ground vegetation so the DCR’s Charles River Conservancy (CRC) wiped out that vegetation.

They regularly destroy protective vegetation in the nesting area and along the Charles River.

The sidewalk plans were announced to destroy the northern end of the nesting area.

The DCR and Cambridge installed a wall of bushes blocking access from Magazine Beach to the Charles River. The CRC heralded this wall as an boon to swimming through a swim-in after the DCR and Cambridge started starving the Charles River White Geese for the project.

The DCR heralded the starvation in years of statements that they intended to do no harm to the Charles River White Geese. The years of promises were explained by a statement that starving them is not harming them.

Scheduled next is destruction of GREEN maintenance at Magazine Beach for replacement by CHEMICAL maintenance, paid for by the City of Cambridge.

This introduction of chemical maintenance follows on Ebersol Field near Mass. General. The chemicals did not work so the DCR tossed on Tartan. The next day the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the BU Bridge.

Of course, the chemicals will destroy the eggs of birds eating the chemicals. The DCR, through the CRC, has been destroying the eggs of as much waterfowl as they can get away with for years now.

So enjoy the sidewalk project. It is part of a very bad record on the part of the DCR and Cambridge, but both will tell you how green they are. Just do not look at the environment and do not expect minimal competence.

DCR Belligerently Incompetent on BU Bridge Work and Elsewhere

Bob La Trémouille reports with responses in Section 5.

1. Introduction.
2. BU Bridge Sidewalk Project.
a. Sidewalk work – traffic closures THREE MONTHS EARLY.
b. Environmental Vileness of the Sidewalk Project.
3. The Boston Side of the BU Bridge.
a. Preexisting situation.
b. Improvements.
(a) Traffic channel to the BU Bridge.
(b) Carlton Street Bridge.
c. Summary.
4. The Governor’s attitude toward traffic.
5. Responses.
a. Marilyn Wellons, Anderson Bridge.
b. Bob, Longfellow Bridge.


1. Introduction.

The governor has announced a series of major bridge improvements. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR)’s work in the BU Bridge area raises very meaningful question, once again, as to whether the DCR should be disbanded as incompetent to perform its construction function.

2. BU Bridge Sidewalk Project.

a. Sidewalk work – traffic closures THREE MONTHS EARLY.

On or about May 10, the DCR closed the westernmost of the four traffic lanes crossing the BU Bridge, causing severe traffic impact. This was for sidewalk work.

The DCR has just announced that NOW, after three months of traffic impact by the closing of that traffic lane, the DCR is going to START the sidewalk work.

b. Environmental Vileness of the Sidewalk Project.

In accordance with the DCR’s total lack of fitness to manage wildlife, the DCR’s plans, last I heard, were to destroy the northern end of the last remaining undestroyed part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The DCR, through its agent the Charles River Conservancy (CRC) has destroyed almost all of the other ground vegetation in increments in the five years the CRC has been routinely destroying ground vegetation for the DCR.

3. The Boston Side of the BU Bridge.

a. Preexisting situation.

The heaviest traffic which crosses over the BU Bridge from the South comes from the Fenway by way of Park Drive and Mountfort Streets and from the Riverway, Longwood and Brookline by way of Carlton Street. These two lanes of traffic merge on a bridge over the Mass. Turnpike which bridge is the extension of Carlton Street.

The Carlton Street Bridge strikes Commonwealth Avenue one block east of the BU Bridge. The bridges and roads in this area have been reorganized as a complicated, modified, traffic circle.

Traffic from the Carlton Street Bridge at Commonwealth Avenue can turn right onto Commonwealth Avenue toward that part of Boston University and toward Kenmore Square.

Traffic from the Carlton Street Bridge can go straight onto a short street which feeds to Storrow Drive East. This is the major route to downtown Boston.

Traffic from the Carlton Street Bridge can go left, either to the BU Bridge or to the portion of Boston University to the west and to Allston.

Traffic on the Carlton Street Bridge is a massive jam up during rush hour. The overwhelming majority of the traffic on that bridge goes over the BU Bridge.

There long has been a mandatory left turn sign requiring the traffic in the left lane to turn left. If it went straight, it would have to fight through very large numbers of cars going to the BU Bridge. That would be very dangerous.

This traffic has long gone through a one lane channel which leads from Commonwealth Avenue to the BU Bridge. The traffic volume is such that commonly two lanes have tried to fit into that one lane channel.

There was an excellent row of greenery on the Boston University side of the sidewalk in this area, between a parking lot and the sidewalk.

b. Improvements.

(a) Traffic channel to the BU Bridge.

One of the first things done in the “improvements” was to destroy that block long row of greenery.

This seemed like a necessary evil, given the traffic situation in that one lane channel with two lanes of traffic using the one lane, and the DCR has increased the size of the channel to two lanes.

They just put in the street markings.

After destroying that excellent greenery to put in two lanes of right turn traffic, the DCR has put down traffic markings which prohibit the use of the left lane of the two right turn lanes for driving.

So the DCR has spent massive amounts of money and destroyed excellent vegetation to create a turn lane which it prohibits using.

(b) Carlton Street Bridge.

The traffic coming off the Carlton Street Bridge has so much traffic going to the BU Bridge that the traffic needs both lanes, and the left lane long has had a sign requiring a left turn.

That sign has been replaced with a sign that requires the left lane to turn left and TELLS THE RIGHT LANE TO GO STRAIGHT OR TURN RIGHT, NOT TO GO LEFT.

Another flatly and simply stupid traffic direction.

c. Summary.

The DCR has spent big bucks on “improvements” which, by its traffic markings and signs, it has tossed into the trashcan, IF THE TRAFFIC MARKINGS AND SIGNS ARE OBEYED.

4. The Governor’s attitude toward traffic.

This Governor has indicated distress at the way people drive in Massachusetts.

A very major factor in the habits of drivers is contempt displayed by the governments of Massachusetts toward highway safety.

The DCR with its THREE MONTH EARLY lane closing on the BU Bridge and its FLAT OUT STUPID signage and marking on the Boston side has displayed contempt for highway safety and toward highway regulation.

If the Governor is serious about highway safety, the Governor will discipline the people responsible for this stupidity and discipline them very publicly.

The Governor should also IMMEDIATELY end the further stupidity planned for Magazine Beach and for the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese to the east of the BU Bridge, and the governor should reverse FIVE YEARS OF OUTRAGES there.

5. Responses.

a. Marilyn Wellons, Anderson Bridge.

Marilyn reports the following concerning the intersection associated with the Bridge on the Boston side of the Charles River:

**************

The DCR has also changed the intersection at Soldiers Field Road and North Harvard Street just before the Anderson Bridge.

Formerly two northbound lanes could go straight across the bridge. Now the DCR has restricted the right lane to right turns only, Consequently cars going straight or turning left (to go west on Soldiers Field Road) now line up single file at the light.

When the light changes, cars going straight must move to the right to go around cars waiting for the left turn through southbound traffic from the Anderson Bridge. When they do so, however, they run the risk of being hit from behind or sideswiped by cars in the right-hand, "right-turn only" lane that are in fact going straight--contrary to the DCR's new signs and lane-markings.

It really is an ordeal to navigate this intersection.

b. Bob, Longfellow Bridge.

The Longfellow Bridge is the bridge connecting Kendall Square, Cambridge to Beacon Hill, Boston and the Massachusetts General Hospital.

This bridge on the Boston side feeds into Charles Circle.

In the middle of Charles Circle is Charles Station on the MBTA’s Red Line, which was recently rebuilt along with the traffic circle which is under Charles Station.

The Longfellow Bridge going eastward into Boston feeds to the south of Charles station into a much more complicated road system than the road system which previously existed, and the old road system was complicated.

The two land bridge approach expands into three lanes, the left lane very promptly deadends.

There is a sign telling traffic where to go.

The right lane is directed to go right, to Charles Street, or straight ahead to Cambridge Street.

The middle lane is directed to go straight to Cambridge Street.

The left lane is directed to turn left into what is now six lanes of traffic under Charles Station, organized three lanes, divider, three lanes. The left lane then ends and cannot go straight. Traffic on that lane must turn.

As with the BU Bridge, the traffic turning left into those six lanes under Charles Station is too much for the left lane. The left lane cannot go straight. It must turn into one of those six lanes under Charles Station.

The center lane, because of the marking is prohibited from turning left and ordered only to go straight.

As at the BU Bridge, this is flatly and simply stupid.

Update on Monteiro case

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have been keeping folks up to date on the events in this case insofar as is possible strictly from the docket.

The reality is that, just looking at the docket, the situation looks decidedly strange.

On May 23, 2008, the second jury in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge presented its verdict. The Cambridge Chronicle has reported that the jury’s verdict found that Cambridge had harmed the plaintiff with damages exceeding $1 million because of Cambridge’s retaliation against the Black Female plaintiff for her filing a complaint of discrimination in violation of her civil rights. The jury further found that Cambridge should pay penal damages in the amount of $3.5 million.

This jury verdict, if it stands, could possibly be considered reason to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

On June 19, 2008, the judge conducted a hearing at which time, the plaintiff moved that judgment be entered in accordance with the jury verdict. The defendant, the City of Cambridge, sought a new trial or, in the alternative, reduction of damages.

On July 3, 2008, the City of Cambridge filed "Post Trial Submissions."

On July 13, 2008, the City of Cambridge filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal.

On July 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed a response to Cambridge’s "Post Trial Submissions."

Now, on August 4, 2008, the City of Cambridge has filed a "MOTION to strike plff Monteiro’s memorandum in response to deft’s supplemental post-trial submission." Also noted as part of this filing is plaintiff’s opposition and a notice of filing under Superior Court Rule 9A which governs motion practice.

I do not know what is in the papers. They are on the judge’s desk. I have no knowledge of what was done in the trial. All I know is what is in the docket.

Cambridge, MA: A Primer on What Passes for Environmentalism

Bob La Trémouille reports:

A week ago, the Cambridge Chronicle printed a letter to the editor objecting to a new park being built in the eastern end of Central Square.

Yesterday, July 31, 2008, they printed the following response from me with consolidation of a number of paragraphs:

***********

The Columbia - Main Park project is highly unusual from the Cambridge City Council in that, as far as I know, it does not feature wanton environmental destruction.

Extreme bad examples are:

Fresh Pond where a massive number of HEALTHY trees are being destroyed because they are in the way of saplings.

Explanation: Golly gee, won't it look nice!!! Besides, we don't count trees we destroy. We only count trees we plant.

Magazine Beach pending: Destruction of GREEN maintenance to replace it with CHEMICAL maintenance. The prototype is Ebersol Fields near Mass. General. The chemicals did not work so the DCR dumped Tartan. The next day the Charles was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the results of the poisoning recur every year.

The chemicals have the side effect of poisoning feeding birds and destroying their eggs.

Explanation: Golly gee, won't it look nice!!!

Magazine Beach accomplished: Wetlands and animal habitat destroyed to wall off the Charles River with a bizarre wall of bushes.

Explanation? The developer funded Charles River Conservancy conducted a swim in to celebrate blocking off swimming. Some of the usual types say you have to be crazy to call this bizarre wall of bushes bizarre.

Simultaneously with blocking all of the waterfront at Magazine Beach, Cambridge put up a wall blocking off access to the grass at the Hyatt.

One hundred percent denial of their food to the Charles River White Geese.

Explanation: The DCR repeatedly denies intent to harm. They say that starving them is not harming them.

Or you might want to talk to some of these supposedly environmental groups containing friends of the city council / city manager. They do not want to know nothing.

So, live sweet. Ask any one of your beloved city councilors.

They will brag that they are pro-environment.

They are just shocked if you look at the environment. They want you to look at their lovely buildings and their lovely saplings.

The best thing that could happen to the environment in Cambridge would be for the $4.5 million CIVIL RIGHTS JURY judgment against the City Manager to go final.

That might force nine extremely bad city councilors to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

Update on Monteiro Case

Bob La Trémouille reports:

On July 25, 2008, the following paper was filed: Plaintiff, Malvina Monteiro response to Post-Trial Supplemental Submission of the City of Cambridge.

This follows on several actions since the jury verdict was rendered:

5/23/08: Verdict of Jury for the Plaintiff.
6/19/08: Hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment and the Defendant's Motion for reversal of jury verdict or for reduction of damages.
7/3/08: Defendant's Post-Trial Submissions.
7/15/08: Defendant's Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal.

Please see below for detailed analysis of this matter.

Report on Citizens Advisory Committee on Urban Ring meeting, July 28, 2008

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.
2. EOT’s alternatives to the bus tunnel are in blatant violation of the Secretary’s Certificate upon which the Phase 2 process is based.
a. Added Fenway Park Station.
b. Tunnel to BU Bridge.
c. Summary.
3. Games from the City of Cambridge.
a. Report from a Cambridge appointee.
b. Future of the Cambridge City Manager.
c. Results of a changing of the guard in Cambridge?
4. Allston.
5. Marilyn Wellons comments.

1. Introduction.

The Citizens’ Advisory Committee for the Urban Ring met in Boston City Hall on Monday afternoon, July 28, 2008.

The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT, hope I translated right) announced it is expanding on the grossly expensive bus tunnel proposed for the Longwood Medical Area as part of Phase 2, buses, of the Urban Ring transportation proposal.

This expansion would be done through two "alternatives" based on this massive tunnel.

The basic proposal connects buses from Yawkey Station (near Fenway Park and Kenmore) to Louis Pasteur and Longwood (in the heart of the Longwood Medical Area) and then to Ruggles Station. The entire route is underground and very expensive. It would cost $1.5 Billion of a $2.2 Billion project that is supposed to be regional.

The 1.5 mile busway would service two buslines. One is a renumbered CT-2 bus. The other is a renumbered CT-3 bus. It is proposed to have one stop, at Louis Pasteur and Longwood.

Additionally, Boston has proposed an alternative in Allston which would be further west than the existing proposal.

2. EOT’s alternatives to the bus tunnel are in blatant violation of the Secretary’s Certificate upon which the Phase 2 process is based.

There are two new alternative tunnel routes proposed. No cost estimates were provided but both would raise the price tag on the tunnel part of the Urban Ring.

a. Added Fenway Park Station.

One alternative would move the spot at which the northern end of the tunnel comes out of the ground closer to Yawkey Station.

The purpose of this change is to allow room for a station connecting to the Fenway Park station on the Green Line Riverside line.

This station would bring the tunnel buses much closer to Green Line passengers. This change would, however, require that Longwood passengers travel on only one branch of the Green Line, at least for the last few hundred yards. It would also create a station fairly close to the Kenmore Station on the Urban Ring Phase 3 subway line.

Without this change, the basic proposal would run the renumbered CT-3 Bus to Kenmore from Yawkey to pick up Green Line passengers. That would have quite major traffic impact especially in rush hours.

b. Tunnel to BU Bridge.

The other alternate tunnel would connect to the BU Bridge system. It would turn the bus tunnel at Park Drive / the Fenway Park station rather than going straight ahead toward Yawkey. The bus tunnel would then run under Park Drive and Mountfort. The bus tunnel would turn to the north just before the current BU Bridge roadway system. This tunnel would connect to the highways to be built over the Grand Junction railroad bridge and to the highways proposed to Harvard’s Business, Science and Med School campus in Allston.

Two additional stops are proposed, one at the Fenway Park station apparently connecting to the Riverside and Cleveland Circle lines and the second just south of Commonwealth Avenue in what is now a parking lot, connecting to the Commonwealth Avenue line.

c. Summary.

These alternatives would be in clear violation of the directions of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs in her certificate that initiated the current planning process. The Secretary ordered that nothing be done in Phase 2 which would interfere with the options in phase 3.

The bus tunnel connecting to the BU Bridge system would be the BU Bridge crossing. Building that tunnel in Phase 2 would decide which of the two Charles River crossings be would used in Phase 3.

Putting the phase 3 crossing tunnel in phase 2 would decide Phase 3 Charles River crossing determinations AGAINST the Kenmore crossing which is far superior from a transportation and an environmental point of view.

Problems with the change that would only add a Fenway Park station and move the portal slightly are much less major but not insignificant. That new stop would put two stops on the Urban Ring for the Riverside line, pretty close together, this new bus transfer, and the excellent Kenmore Station. This would hurt performance on the Urban Ring and provide no real improvement in service.

3. Games from the City of Cambridge.

a. Report from a Cambridge appointee.

The increasing violations of the secretary’s certificate are very reminiscent of a report an Audubon Circle (Park Drive and Beacon) resident got from a female friend appointed to a Cambridge entity.

My immediate reaction, before hearing anything else, when I heard the friend was a Cambridge appointee, was that the friend should not be trusted because of the lack of trustworthiness of many representatives of the City of Cambridge both disclosed and, much more importantly, undisclosed. This is not a condemnation of each and every member of such committees. Rather, it is recognition that these people can wind up on the receiving end of false statements.

The friend told her that the Phase 3 Kenmore Crossing was dead.

Looks like the City of Cambridge or one of its friends is trying to decide the issue without allowing it to be considered.

b. Future of the Cambridge City Manager.

The Cambridge City Council is on the verge of figuring out what to do with a jury verdict on civil rights abuses by the Cambridge City Manager. A Middlesex Superior Court jury has found illegal retaliation by the Cambridge City Manager in his firing of a black female department head for filing a civil rights claim.

It looks like the Cambridge City Council will have to decide between appealing the $4.5 million jury verdict or paying it and disciplining the Cambridge City Manager.

c. Results of a changing of the guard in Cambridge?

Perhaps the environmental dirty tricks will stop under a new City Manager? Firing him would still leave severe problems which would have to be cleared out in the development department. Firing him would not kill the massive army of an organization he and his predecessor have created through the development department over 35 years.

4. Allston.

The City of Boston has proposed an Allston alignment further west, near what is the Brighton Mills (Shaw’s Super Market) complex on Western Avenue.

The chair promised to send me a copy of the letter.

5. Marilyn Wellons comments on 3. c., above:

Your point about Cambridge if and when Healy-Rossi leave is very well taken.

As we're seeing, it's not easy to get rid of a rat infestation following uncontrolled construction projects.

To Cambridge City Council: Bar City Manager & City Solicitor from Monteiro Discussions as Advisors

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I mailed the following letter yesterday to the Cambridge City Council:

July 25, 2008
City Council
City of Cambridge
c/o City Clerk
Cambridge City Hall
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

RE: Monteiro v. Cambridge
Middlesex County Civil Docket MICV2001-02737

Gentlemen/Ladies:

Soon, the Cambridge City Council will be faced with a decision as to whether the City should appeal the judgment in the Monteiro case or, as the jury would seem to consider appropriate, fire the Cambridge City Manager plus, perhaps, the Cambridge City Solicitor.

The very major penal damages awarded by the jury in addition to major actual damages indicate rather strong contempt by the jury for the behavior of the City of Cambridge in this matter.

Should the City of Cambridge choose to accept the jury decision, a good deal of money is readily available by killing the outrageous environmental projects at Magazine Beach and Fresh Pond.

Since the jobs of the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Solicitor are at stake, it would seem highly inappropriate that either participate in deliberations as advisors to the Cambridge City Council and, instead, be considered potential targets for personnel actions.

I did not witness the trial and the file on the case is not available. The file is on the desk of Justice Bonnie H. MacLeod who presided over the trial. I have reviewed the docket and have read the report in the Cambridge Chronicle.

The jury verdict was entered on May 23, 2008. The Cambridge Chronicle reports that the plaintiff was awarded more than $1 million in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages. These actions were taken in response to a complaint by the plaintiff that she had been fired in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint against the City of Cambridge.

On May 29, 2008, Cambridge moved for prompt hearing on post trial motions. On June 12, 2008, post trial motions were filed including Cambridge’s motion to set aside the verdict or reduce the award. On June 19, a hearing was held on the motions. Cambridge has since, on July 3, filed “Defendant’s Post Trial Submissions,” and, on July 15, filed “Defendant City of Cambridge’s MOTION to supplement record on appeal.”

Justice Catherine A. White presided over the original trial in which the jury was deadlocked on the issue of retaliation by Cambridge because the plaintiff filed the basic civil rights complaint.

Cambridge moved that Justice White find for the city on the issue of retaliation after the jury deadlocked. Justice White’s order in response, by electronic copy from the docket, is attached.

The relevant portion of Justice White’s order reads:

"Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable."

Justice White talks about a “number of incidents.”

It is unlikely that the evidence in the second trial was less favorable to the plaintiff. The jury verdict very clearly responds to what Justice White refers to as a “number of incidents.”

Cambridge is asking Justice MacLeod not only to reverse the jury verdict but also to reverse the order of Justice White.

Such a reversal by Justice MacLeod seems highly unlikely.

What is highly likely is that Justice MacLeod is spending a lot of time providing written documentation of the “number of incidents.”

The jury clearly considered the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager reprehensible. It is highly unlikely that the Cambridge City Manager accomplished this behavior without advice of the Cambridge City Solicitor.

Neither the Cambridge City Manager nor the Cambridge City Solicitor should participate as advisors in your consideration of whether to appeal or to take disciplinary action against the Cambridge City Manager plus perhaps against the Cambridge City Solicitor.

Thank you in advance for taking behavior appropriate for a City Council which states that it is pro-civil rights.

Sincerely,

Robert J. La Trémouille


Attachment 1, Monteiro v. Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court Civil Action MICV2001- 02737, paper 81, June 2, 2005, electronic copy of docket entry. [Ed: In the letter, this is a direct electronic copy of the docket. The docket is in tabular format. The numbers are in cells on the left. The text is in cells on the right. The tabular format has been lost in copying to this blog. In my edits, I have tried to block off the text to make it read better. My blocking has also been lost. Another possible edit would be to drop the numbers on the left. I have chosen not to do that edit because of my opinion that that edit would not be true to what was transmitted.]

ORDER on Defendant's Motion for
Directed Verdict and/or
2 Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict:
3 Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a
4 long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of
5 discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However,
6 there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably
7 be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this
8 Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time
9 makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable. Plaintiff's statement
10 of supplemental authority, forwarded to the Court on April 21, 2005
11 does not persuade the Court to change its earlier rulings.
12 Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's earlier denial of
13 a motion for directed verdict on this issue is denied, and the motion
14 for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence remains
15 denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a) report to the Appeals
16 Court is also denied. ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed
17 Verdict and/or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed
18 Verdict: Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that,
19 admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial
20 complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate
21 her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that
22 could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events.
23 Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the
24 passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable.
25 Plaintiff's statement of supplemental authority, forwarded to the
26 Court on April 21, 2005 does not persuade the Court to change its
27 earlier rulings. Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's
28 earlier denial of a motion for directed verdict on this issue is
29 denied, and the motion for directed verdict at the close of all of
30 the evidence remains denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a)
31 report to the Appeals Court is also denied. Dated: May 27, 2005
32 (White, Catherine A.) Justice of the Superior Court. Dated: May 27,
33 2005

Further update

At the previous post's Item 4, Bob La Tremouille reports on behavior by the City Manager and his appointees. Marilyn Wellons reports here one incident involving the Deputy City Manager:

I've heard that aggrieved citizens had a meeting with Cambridge Deputy City Manager Rossi about an issue he apparently did not agree with them on. When the residents entered his office, Mr. Rossi was at his desk with his feet up, and his feet remained there during the meeting, blocking the residents' view of his face and his of theirs.

Showing the soles of your shoes like this is a well-known and serious insult in other parts of the world.

If confirmed, this is the first instance of it I've heard of here. I'm struck how even in our culture this behavior comes across as deeply insulting.

My husband's reaction to the report was that "the people of Cambridge seem to have bought themselves an official who has no fear of consequences for such acts."

The judgment against the City of Cambridge under the management of people like this may change that.

Update on jury’s more than $4.5 million civil rights award against the City of Cambridge.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Update.
2. Analysis of case.
3. What the judge could be looking at.
4. My experiences.


1. Update.

The jury decision against the City of Cambridge in Monteiro v. Cambridge continues to be on the judge’s desk.

The jury found that Cambridge had retaliated against a black woman for filing a civil rights action against Cambridge. She was the head of the Police Review Board until fired, according to the jury, in retaliation for filing the civil rights complaint.

The jury awarded slightly over $1 million in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages.

The jury rendered its verdict on May 23, 2008. On May 29, the City of Cambridge moved for prompt hearing on post trial motions. The motions were filed on June 12, and a hearing conducted on June 19. On July 3, Cambridge filed something described as “Defendant’s Post Trial Submissions.”

On July 15, which I became aware of on July 22 when checking the docket, Cambridge filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal.

Cambridge is trying to get the judge to say that the jury decision makes no sense and throw it out. In the alternative, Cambridge is trying to get the judge to reduce the award.

2. Analysis of case.

It truly is impossible to enter into a specific analysis of the case. I did not witness any part of the trial. I have not read the transcript. I can’t even read the papers because they are on the judge’s desk while she thinks the matter over.

The judge hearing the case is Justice Bonnie H. MacLeod.

A similar motion was heard by the trial judge in the first trial of the case. In that trial, the jury found against the plaintiff on her primary claim of civil rights abuses, but was unable to come to a verdict on the plaintiff’s claim of retaliation.

The docket in the trial indicates some instances in which the Court was asked to intervene on preliminary matters.

Service in the case was made on September 25, 2001. A joint pre-trial memorandum was filed on March 1, 2005. Trial was held on April 12, 2005, matter taken under advisement, Catherine A White Justice.

It is not clear from the docket, but my understanding is that the jury found against the plaintiff on the main civil rights complaint and was unable to come to a verdict on the retaliation complaint.

On June 2, 2005, Judge White denied the City of Cambridge’s motion to order a finding against the plaintiff on the retaliation claim.

There is a lot of similarity between what apparently faced Justice White in 2005 and what is now facing Justice MacLeod. The most important difference is that the 2005 jury could not come to a decision and the 2008 jury came to a decision with a vengeance.

3. What the judge could be looking at.

There have been United States Supreme Court decisions on penal damages. The jury’s award rather clearly seems to push the limit allowed. A recent very major maritime decision by the U.S. Supreme Court limited penal damages to the amount of actual damages.

Clearly, Justice MacLeod is thinking things over and forging a decision with an eye to ensuring that it will stand up on appeal.

Clearly, as well, once a jury has reached a decision, there is very strong bias to retaining the decision. There has to be very good reason to overturn a decision.

Justice White in 2005 found that she could not order a decision against the plaintiff on the retaliation issue after the jury deadlocked. The law is such that the situation has to be extremely clear to make such an order.

The way the law works, it is highly unlikely that Justice MacLeod will overturn the jury’s decision.

That leaves the issue of damages and penal damages. The first point is whether damages were accurately awarded. The second point is whether penal damages are appropriate or are excessive.

$1 million plus in real damages is what the jury found to be the actual monetary harm done.

Something caused the jury to award $3.5 million in penal damages. It is reasonable to assume that the jury was given reason to have very strong contempt for the actions of the City of Cambridge.

To the extent that there was supporting testimony, the judge is probably trying to put that testimony together to determine if the $3.5 million in penal damages.

4. My experiences.

I can say very little about the Cambridge City Manager directly. I have been exposed to his organization in the community and to his representatives in the Development Department. The exposure leaves me with a very strong feeling that parallels the apparent feeling of the jury.

I have very strong concern for the behavior of the City of Cambridge on Environmental and Civil Rights matters. Judging the behavior of the City of Cambridge on the basis its own rhetoric, I see good reason to have contempt for the City of Cambridge.

Of the top of my head, I can remember one situation in which the Election Board flatly and simply refused to obey a clearly applicable case and threw out more than half the signatures on an election nomination petition. A strikingly bizarre “decision” from the City Solicitor blessed this outrageous action.

I can go on and on about outrageous behavior by the “neighborhood groups” and individuals which are aligned with the Cambridge City Manager. There have been repeated complaints about behavior of appointees of the Cambridge City Manager. His number two person, in particular, has earned a lot of concern, to use the nicest word conceivable.

The actions commonly can get quite personal.

My experience tells me that the judge probably has plenty in the record to justify the $3.5 million penal damage verdict.

We will see.